MS Windows Linux Distribution? - Linux

This is a discussion on MS Windows Linux Distribution? - Linux ; It's been my experience that the average user is reluctant to try Linux because they are used to MS Windows, and Windows nomenclature. My question for the group is: Is there a Linux distribution that mimics MS Windows to the ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: MS Windows Linux Distribution?

  1. MS Windows Linux Distribution?

    It's been my experience that the average user is reluctant to try Linux
    because they are used to MS Windows, and Windows nomenclature. My question
    for the group is: Is there a Linux distribution that mimics MS Windows to
    the point that the average MS simpleton would have no problem using the
    computer on which it was loaded? Mind you, I've been using linux for well
    over 12 years, and have recommend it to most everyone I meet. Those who do
    try it, struggle with how the graphical managers (KDE, Gnome, etc) work or
    the program names are unfamiliar to them. My belief is if there were a
    Linux distribution that mimicked Windows behavior, and the program
    nomenclature was consistent with Windows, it would be easier for the
    average user to use immediately.

    Thoughts, comments?

    Michael R James
    jamesm@thundertux.org



  2. Re: MS Windows Linux Distribution?

    In comp.os.linux.setup Michael James :
    > It's been my experience that the average user is reluctant to try Linux
    > because they are used to MS Windows, and Windows nomenclature. My question
    > for the group is: Is there a Linux distribution that mimics MS Windows to
    > the point that the average MS simpleton would have no problem using the
    > computer on which it was loaded? Mind you, I've been using linux for well
    > over 12 years, and have recommend it to most everyone I meet. Those who do
    > try it, struggle with how the graphical managers (KDE, Gnome, etc) work or
    > the program names are unfamiliar to them. My belief is if there were a
    > Linux distribution that mimicked Windows behavior, and the program
    > nomenclature was consistent with Windows, it would be easier for the
    > average user to use immediately.


    > Thoughts, comments?


    This is one of the most annoying requests frequently asked.

    Simple reason Linux != Windows:

    http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

    If you still insist you wouldn't ask if you don't, I bet lindows
    or how it is called today and suse would be the closest bet...

    You might want to check for additional virus scanner and of
    course solid defrag software. Not that you would need any on a
    Linux desktop, but people are used to it...

    Honestly this is a complete wrong approach, if people are just
    willing to use linux if it is like M$, then why do they want to
    change at all?

    Good luck

    --
    Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
    mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
    #bofh excuse 45: virus attack, luser responsible

  3. Re: MS Windows Linux Distribution?

    Michael James wrote:
    > It's been my experience that the average user is reluctant to try Linux
    > because they are used to MS Windows, and Windows nomenclature. My question
    > for the group is: Is there a Linux distribution that mimics MS Windows to
    > the point that the average MS simpleton would have no problem using the
    > computer on which it was loaded? Mind you, I've been using linux for well
    > over 12 years, and have recommend it to most everyone I meet. Those who do
    > try it, struggle with how the graphical managers (KDE, Gnome, etc) work or
    > the program names are unfamiliar to them. My belief is if there were a
    > Linux distribution that mimicked Windows behavior, and the program
    > nomenclature was consistent with Windows, it would be easier for the
    > average user to use immediately.


    > Thoughts, comments?


    It would not be linux distro but the window manager.

    When I made the permanent switch I was using 98 release 2 (service pack one?
    The first first released upgrade) which was the first windows that, for me, made
    it as easy to do most things as to drop to a DOS window. So I had gotten
    comfortable with living in a graphic environment for the first time.

    After I made the switch (dual boot actually but leading quickly to never using
    windows again) I tried Gnome which at that time behaved entirely differently
    from windows, more like a Mac. I then tried KDE and was completely comfortable
    with using that environment at that time.

    I do not remember what either windows or KDE were like back then and have no
    idea what Windows and Gnome are like today so I have no idea if this is any
    longer a valid comment. Nor have I tried any other window managers. I still use
    KDE.

    You are probably going to want to create desktop icons for the basic
    applications so the person can at least keep doing what they were doing while
    learning.

    --
    Bush declared Hezbollah's reconstruction efforts to be and act of terrorism.
    New Orleans residents agree they prefer Hezbollah over Bush.
    -- The Iron Webmaster, 3699
    nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
    antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1

  4. Re: MS Windows Linux Distribution?

    On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:22:14 GMT, Michael James
    wrote:

    >It's been my experience that the average user is reluctant to try Linux
    >because they are used to MS Windows, and Windows nomenclature. My question
    >for the group is: Is there a Linux distribution that mimics MS Windows to
    >the point that the average MS simpleton would have no problem using the
    >computer on which it was loaded? Mind you, I've been using linux for well
    >over 12 years, and have recommend it to most everyone I meet. Those who do
    >try it, struggle with how the graphical managers (KDE, Gnome, etc) work or
    >the program names are unfamiliar to them. My belief is if there were a
    >Linux distribution that mimicked Windows behavior, and the program
    >nomenclature was consistent with Windows, it would be easier for the
    >average user to use immediately.
    >
    >Thoughts, comments?
    >
    >Michael R James
    >jamesm@thundertux.org
    >



    Ubuntu has it figured out. It does not operate quite like windows,
    but it is close enough. It actually makes, IMHO, a few improvements
    over most interfaces I've seen.

    The reason I would recommend it for a windows user, is because it is
    the closest linux distro that just works. I have not tried a lot, but
    maybe about a half a dozen over the years, including Madriva, Puppy,
    Freespire and others I can't remember. The areas that are the worst
    for windows users trying linux is installation, installing
    applications (dependancy hell) and unsupported hardware. The look and
    feel are immaterial as long as it behaves they way you would expect
    and does not make you jump thru hoops to do simple or "common" things.

    Again IMHO Ubuntu seems to be the distro in a recent progression of
    distros that actually has a shot at the desktop because it seems to do
    the best in these areas. It's not perfect, but very close.


    Steve TWP



  5. Re: MS Windows Linux Distribution?

    On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:22:14 +0000, Michael James wrote:

    > It's been my experience that the average user is reluctant to try Linux
    > because they are used to MS Windows, and Windows nomenclature. My question
    > for the group is: Is there a Linux distribution that mimics MS Windows to
    > the point that the average MS simpleton would have no problem using the
    > computer on which it was loaded? Mind you, I've been using linux for well
    > over 12 years, and have recommend it to most everyone I meet. Those who do
    > try it, struggle with how the graphical managers (KDE, Gnome, etc) work or
    > the program names are unfamiliar to them. My belief is if there were a
    > Linux distribution that mimicked Windows behavior, and the program
    > nomenclature was consistent with Windows, it would be easier for the
    > average user to use immediately.
    >
    > Thoughts, comments?
    >
    > Michael R James
    > jamesm@thundertux.org


    Why would anyone want to install an alternative OS if it permitted users
    to install viruses and worms the same way that M$ Windows does?

    Ma Hogany

    --
    "Even though a peice of code may be documented it doesn't make it readable,
    understandable or even usable. Especially when said documentation starts with
    "I don't know exactly why this was included, what it does, or how it does it
    but the system won't work without it" or simply "Sorry about this..."

  6. Re: MS Windows Linux Distribution?

    >
    > Why would anyone want to install an alternative OS if it permitted

    users
    > to install viruses and worms the same way that M$ Windows does?
    >
    > Ma Hogany
    >

    Yes, thank you for that very useless contribution

  7. Re: MS Windows Linux Distribution?


    "Steve the Wire Puller" wrote in message
    news7n2f2d998gljd4bh65ardp6sgnq4q4p43@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:22:14 GMT, Michael James
    > wrote:
    >
    >>It's been my experience that the average user is reluctant to try Linux
    >>because they are used to MS Windows, and Windows nomenclature. My
    >>question
    >>for the group is: Is there a Linux distribution that mimics MS Windows to
    >>the point that the average MS simpleton would have no problem using the
    >>computer on which it was loaded? Mind you, I've been using linux for well
    >>over 12 years, and have recommend it to most everyone I meet. Those who
    >>do
    >>try it, struggle with how the graphical managers (KDE, Gnome, etc) work or
    >>the program names are unfamiliar to them. My belief is if there were a
    >>Linux distribution that mimicked Windows behavior, and the program
    >>nomenclature was consistent with Windows, it would be easier for the
    >>average user to use immediately.
    >>
    >>Thoughts, comments?
    >>
    >>Michael R James
    >>jamesm@thundertux.org
    >>

    >
    >
    > Ubuntu has it figured out. It does not operate quite like windows,
    > but it is close enough. It actually makes, IMHO, a few improvements
    > over most interfaces I've seen.
    >
    > The reason I would recommend it for a windows user, is because it is
    > the closest linux distro that just works. I have not tried a lot, but
    > maybe about a half a dozen over the years, including Madriva, Puppy,
    > Freespire and others I can't remember. The areas that are the worst
    > for windows users trying linux is installation, installing
    > applications (dependancy hell) and unsupported hardware. The look and
    > feel are immaterial as long as it behaves they way you would expect
    > and does not make you jump thru hoops to do simple or "common" things.
    >
    > Again IMHO Ubuntu seems to be the distro in a recent progression of
    > distros that actually has a shot at the desktop because it seems to do
    > the best in these areas. It's not perfect, but very close.
    >
    >
    > Steve TWP
    >
    >


    I prefer the SUSE flavour as it is supported (FREE) by Novell !
    and Yes Matt, surely it is the window manager that does the stuff that
    MSWindoze fan will want. I too prefer the KDE, and of course for Windoze
    users it will be a revelation to find that just about anything can be
    altered / configured to suit your own preferences. As to the software and
    dependancies trouble. SUSE Yast software installer is a dream to use !
    ..............Zed



  8. Re: MS Windows Linux Distribution?

    Michael James wrote:
    > It's been my experience that the average user is reluctant to try Linux
    > because they are used to MS Windows, and Windows nomenclature. My question
    > for the group is: Is there a Linux distribution that mimics MS Windows to
    > the point that the average MS simpleton would have no problem using the
    > computer on which it was loaded? Mind you, I've been using linux for well
    > over 12 years, and have recommend it to most everyone I meet. Those who do
    > try it, struggle with how the graphical managers (KDE, Gnome, etc) work or
    > the program names are unfamiliar to them. My belief is if there were a
    > Linux distribution that mimicked Windows behavior, and the program
    > nomenclature was consistent with Windows, it would be easier for the
    > average user to use immediately.
    >
    > Thoughts, comments?
    >
    > Michael R James
    > jamesm@thundertux.org


    If a dinosaur came to life today, I could identify perfectly with it,
    because I find DOS more understandable than Windows or Unix -- and DOS
    2.1 more understandable than MS-DOS 6.22.

    The problem with GUIs is that they're simply pictures, and pictures
    don't lend themselves to suggesting what to do. There's nothing
    intuitively instructive about a picture.

    The promise of DOS was that it could instruct users in simple words,
    starting at the beginning and progressing logically, exactly what could
    be done and how to do it. It didn't succeed, but it wasn't because the
    approach was wrong; it was because its creators dropped the ball.

    That's a common theme in information technology. It's easier to start a
    new project than to perfect an existing one.

    --
    Marshall Price of Miami
    Known to Yahoo as d021317c

  9. Re: MS Windows Linux Distribution?

    On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.admin, in article
    , Marshall Price wrote:

    >Michael James wrote:


    >> It's been my experience that the average user is reluctant to try
    >> Linux because they are used to MS Windows, and Windows nomenclature.


    I suspect it is more that they are unwilling to make any effort to
    learn anything, and are resistant to change of any kind.

    >> hose who do try it, struggle with how the graphical managers (KDE,
    >> Gnome, etc) work or the program names are unfamiliar to them. My
    >> belief is if there were a Linux distribution that mimicked Windows
    >> behavior, and the program nomenclature was consistent with Windows,
    >> it would be easier for the average user to use immediately.


    I was under the impression that Lindows was like that.

    >If a dinosaur came to life today, I could identify perfectly with it,
    >because I find DOS more understandable than Windows or Unix -- and DOS
    >2.1 more understandable than MS-DOS 6.22.


    Part of that is because there was so little to DOS. If you _include_
    the debugger and editor (remember edlin), you still came up with less
    than 75 commands total - and that includes the strange commands that
    you stuck into config.sys. DOS by it's lonesome didn't do a whole
    lot of things.

    >The problem with GUIs is that they're simply pictures, and pictures
    >don't lend themselves to suggesting what to do. There's nothing
    >intuitively instructive about a picture.


    Decadent Westerner with such a limited language. The Chinese and
    Japanese seem to be able to put a heck of a lot into a picture
    (properly a ideogram).

    >The promise of DOS was that it could instruct users in simple words,
    >starting at the beginning and progressing logically, exactly what
    >could be done and how to do it. It didn't succeed, but it wasn't
    >because the approach was wrong; it was because its creators dropped
    >the ball.


    except that it didn't do much. I vaguely recall it being ever so
    slightly richer in commands than CP/M, but quite limited otherwise.
    Compared to even the most simple install on a *nix box - try pressing
    the tab key twice in a Bash shell:

    [compton ~]$
    There are 1289 possibilities. Do you really
    wish to see them all? (y or n)
    [compton ~]$

    Actually, a listing shows over 1325 on this box. But when things get
    down to the nitty-gritty:

    [compton ~]$ echo $HISTSIZE
    1000
    [compton ~]$ history | cut -c7- | tr '|' '\n' | sed 's/^ *//' | cut
    -d' ' -f1 | sort -u | wc -l
    74
    [compton ~]$

    So of those 1300 odd commands, I'm using just seventy-odd???

    >That's a common theme in information technology. It's easier to start
    >a new project than to perfect an existing one.


    The other thing many dislike about a GUI is that it is hiding what it
    is actually doing. "Click this icon to add a new user". That's great,
    but what is it actually doing? I know what it's probably doing, because
    I am used to adding users by hand. What's /etc/skel? Most have no
    idea. This might be tolerable, but you are screwed when the GUI
    doesn't start, and you have no idea what to fix - or how. That's one
    reason the standard windoze mantra is "reboot", "reinstall" or "reformat,
    and reinstall" - because there is frequently no other solution possible.

    Old guy

+ Reply to Thread